Friday, March 23, 2012

(R) “Romney” or “Ryan?”

Paul Ryan has unveiled his latest budget, and he’s the only adult in the room, bringing little Barry, Nancy, Harry and their fellow whining naifs in the press to tears by telling them No. Money doesn’t grow on trees.

Democrats, incoherent and out of ideas, hate Ryan because he proposes to dismantle their progressive machinery that has destroyed tens of trillions in wealth and produced $15 trillion in debt and over $50 trillion in future unfunded liabilities. The Buffett Millionaire Tax they propose as a panacea would only raise $31 billion, one-tenth of 1% of the federal budget (if we could get the rich to stand still while government ... taxes them). There ain’t enough tax money to pay for all of this. 100% taxation won’t cover it.

“I think we’ve seen pretty clearly that what this proposal does not do is take the serious approach to getting our fiscal house in order that everyone who’s serious about this issue says you have to take,” spokesman Jay Carney said. (Real Clear Politics)

The White House’s carnie barker in horn-rimmed eyeglasses should be shouting that at his own party. They’ve been on an unbudgeted free-wheeling spending binge for the past three years

We can fix this on our terms, while we still control our destiny, or we can wait until we are like the decrepit Soviet Union or today’s Greece, sold into penury and helplessly prostrate before the international bankers and enemy nations eager for our humiliating comeuppance.

Ryan shows a way out. Not the only way, but he’s the only one with a detailed plan that has been scored and analyzed. The Democrats are intellectually bereft; still hawking last century’s snake oil. Banking regulations failed? Pile on more regulations! Too much debt? We’ll spend our way out! It’s madness.

Democrats Protest Reality

Ryan’s gimlet-eyed analysis of the numbers sends fantasy land liberals into spasmodic paroxysms, leaving Democrat apparatchiks like Gene Sperling raging about “the tyranny of math.” Yes Gene, reality can be a tyrant to little children who stamp their feet demanding that unicorns poop rainbow-colored marshmallows from heaven.

All the left has left is scare tactics, while using “look over here!” tactics to keep our focus off of the looming debt-induced crash. Kevin Drum harps weakly on Ryan’s attempt to hold spending to 19% of GDP, but even that is not a big enough cut. We historically collect around 17% in good time and bad, high tax rates or low tax rates, so government budgeting should revolve around that iron law reality.

Dana Milbank makes the bald-faced case of government as a giant teat, and God forbid we try to wean anyone off of it. The children in the candy store never stop to contemplate that mommy and daddy are borrowing from China to pay for it all, and that it can’t go on forever. They love preaching environmental sustainability, which is a chimera because all natural resources are finite, while simultaneously believing in an eternal fountain of money to pay for their dreams and schemes.

Putting aside all the sturm und drang, here is the cold reality of Ryans “draconian” Plan…

By 2022, under the Ryan Path, debt as a share of GDP would be 62.3% vs. a projected 73.2% in 2012. Under the Obama budget, debt as a share of GDP would be 76.3% in 2022, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Over that period, the Ryan Path would spend $5.3 trillion less than the Obama budget.

Longer term, the differences between the Ryan Path and the Obama budget are even starker. By 2030, debt-to-GDP would be 53% under Ryan, 128% under Obama. By 2040, debt-to-GDP would be 38% under Ryan, 194% under Obama. By 2050, debt-to-GDP would be 10% under Ryan, over 200% under Obama—assuming that under the Obama scenario, the economy hasn’t collapsed. (Pethokoukis)

81 comments:

Ryan shows a way out. Not the only way, but he’s the only one with a detailed plan that has been scored and analyzed.

I say the same applies to each and every one of the potential GOP candidates too.

Only a total MORON can believe that the path we are on right now is sustainable. With the reduction in the work force (aging Boomers and unemployment), something must be done! Otherwise, this entire economy is going to come down like the house of cards it is.

“Despite containing several important reforms and pro-growth policies, the Ryan Budget falls short in two critical respects. First, it does not balance for decades. Secondly, it violates the Budget Control Act by waiving the sequester,” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. “By waiving the automatic spending cuts required under the Budget Control Act, this budget is asking Americans to trust future Congresses to do the hard work later. It is hard to have confidence that our long-term fiscal challenges will be met responsibly when the same Congress that passed the Budget Control Act wants to ignore it less than one year later. On balance, the Ryan Budget is a disappointment for fiscal conservatives.”

It's hard for me to believe that *any* of the Democrat politicians actually believe that we can just solve the problem by taxing the rich more.

I mean, they have all seen the numbers. They've seen that even taxing them 100% would solve nothing.

They're either lying through their teeth because they don't want to lose votes, or they're actually trying to believe it. I'm sure they keep telling themselves "well, in the 50s the tax rate was over 80% for rich people, and that was an economic boom time!"

Yes, the marginal tax rate was over 80% (I think it was even close to like 95% or something crazy like that), but the budget was BALANCED for the most part. Eisenhower was a stickler for making sure that every government program, expenditure, project or whatever was paid for.

No, taxing the rich is not going to apocalyptically stifle growth, but it's also not going to solve the budget problem.

Unfortunately, Jack, Republicans have been just as complicit in telling us and themselves fairy tales.

TwoGuys: I also side with CATO, believing Ryan's plan should go further, but that is not feasible. Everyone does not think like we do, and they vote.

I am tired of everyone crapping all over our own guys just because they don't do exactly what we want. Ryan is a smart man, and he is trying.

Here's what I wrote at LCR:

Paul Ryan is not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. Unlike the left, he is not pulling a trick. His "sin" in the eyes of some is being too timid.

He is threading a needle. Look at the crying and gnashing of teeth this timid plan has spawned. Imagine if he really laid out what we need to do! I think Ryan made the calculation that this is as far as the plan can go and still be politically feasible and palatable to a majority of voters.

Plus, if we all believe in standard economics as espoused by people like Milton Friedman, Ryan's plan will create a virtuous cycle that realizes even more savings that cannot be captured in static budget projections.

If it were up to me, I would leave this whole thing alone until after the election. Yes, broad statements regarding the budget fiasco. But no weeds. Only, and if only we get control of the whole thing can we effect change. To believe otherwise I think is to kid ourselves. There are few adults in the room.

Jersey, I understand that as a liberal you do not understand economics, and you hate economic growth because it rewards the thrifty and industrious while punishing the slothful.

Ryan is the rarest of DC denizens: An honest man. You're the slobbering scumbag for defaming him with no good reason.

I know you like to hear fairy tales about how doves of peace will crap gold nuggets and if we just taxed the rich all our problems would be solved, but you bring no facts. Just MSNutballBullCrap talking points.

So tell us genius, how do we raise an extra 1.5 trillion/year in taxes. How? Put up or shut up.

I agree that what is truly needed is not politically feasible. Unfortunately not even Ryan's Path is politically feasible. The debt bomb will not bee disarmed without reducing the debt. The day will come too soon when the Fed will have to choose between monetizing the debt and bringing on hyperinflation or force the government to default (Greek style). I'm betting it will be hyperinflation.

We are already on the path Jim. I just finished Hayek's "Constitution of Liberty," written in 1960, and he warned of the dangers of monetizing the debt back then, and it's a path we've been on since the 1920's.

Like grown-ups? No way. Stealing more money from the people is like being a schoolyard bully. Time for the ruling elites to grow up and realize that they have more than enough tax money (a record level high, in fact) to do what is necessary. There's no need at all to steal more.

We need to lower taxes, actually.

"Ryan is a sleazy, pandering, scumbag."

In reality, Ryan is a bold leader offering a responsible solution, and an antidote to Obama's plans to add 20 trillion to the debt.

Raising taxes is like asking for a raise. You earn it, by doing your job that positively adds value to what you were hired to do. In this case the ones wanting a raise have brought forth no positive value to what they were hired to do. Just look at the last 4+ years.

So, until such time, you live within your means until you can justify a raise so tha it does bring value to the American people.

Mark: Excellent points. And it is really really hard for our leaders to make any sort of case why they need to raise taxes (or even keep them as high as they are) while they waste money on zillions of earmarks, Sesame Street for young terrorists, and all that luxury travel and those limos.

Speaking of acting like grown ups all tax money does is burn an even bigger hole in the dem's pockets.Time to act like grown ups and figure how how to balance the budget now and in the future.Not sure I want more tax money to go to DC so Michelle and Barack Antoinette can keep partying it up like it's 1999(speaking of adolescents)

Talk about "the tyranny of math", listen to Obama's talk about oil this morning! :-) Man, does HE spin! $$

The Democrats can't take Ryan's plans because they could lose voters if all of America started to realize we can't continue on the path of entitlements, etc etc... Tough, when promising freebies is about all you've got.

How do you contain medical costs? Simple, if you're poor or elderly you don't get any. Not only is it fiscally sound but it's also Christian.

But this was inevitable ever since the fringe right pukes discovered massive deficits as a way to defund the New Deal.Great stuff, you fools pay through the nose to put the rich on easy street, they keep ALL of it and you lose your health care. If you weren't so stupid I'd feel badly for you.

I suspect that liberals won't learn even when they are sold into penury, humiliated and helplessly prostrate. Maybe they're just not capable of learning fiscal discipline and responsibility.

Sad that everyone else and their descendants have to pay for their irresponsible stupidity and stubborn ignorance.

Here's to hoping enough of you Americans have come to your senses after all these years of spending and vote for the Paul Ryan's of America, while the obama's and pelosis as sent packing to carry on squawking and whining amongst themselves.

Obama did not save the auto industry. He did, however, hand it billions in corporate welfare.

If Obama had let the normal process take its course, the automakers would have gone into normal bankruptcy, at $0 cost to taxpayers, at which point they would have re organized and staved off creditors.

As for jobs, Liberalman is lying. Obama has not created any jobs. In fact, he increased unemployment 20%. Do the math. That's destroying jobs, not creating them.

Liberalman also lied: "Good! The GOP keep proposing the same bill; more tax breaks for the rich and less for everyone else. Keep it up, Obama 2012!"

Actually, they proposes more tax breaks for all of us. Only a small number of which are "rich".

Liberal, why do you love corporate welfare so much? Why is it that liberals love to give so much to corporations, while supposed "corporate stooge" conservatives oppose giving anything at all to corporations?

Ah yes, Silverfiddle, what would I do. Well it's going to come as quite a surprise but I don't have a comprehensive plan and if you aren't a fool you know that you don't either.

I'd start by defining my goals:

1. Movement of the much of the systems profit and overhead to actual care through a single payer system.

2. Attention to a comprehensive preventative care and maintenance model.

Yes, my first emphasis would be health care and attacking the absolute insanity of a for profit system. other nations have been successful, no reason we wouldn't be if we first put our minds to it. However, I suspect your first priority would be maintaining a profit oriented system.

Oh, if we are going to let the insurance companies exist in their current form I would repeal their antitrust exemption or shut up about "competition".

Ducky's here said...Ah yes, Silverfiddle, what would I do. Well it's going to come as quite a surprise but I don't have a comprehensive plan and if you aren't a fool you know that you don't either.

I'd start by defining my goals:

1. Movement of the much of the systems profit and overhead to actual care through a single payer system.

2. Attention to a comprehensive preventative care and maintenance model.

Yes, my first emphasis would be health care and attacking the absolute insanity of a for profit system. other nations have been successful, no reason we wouldn't be if we first put our minds to it. However, I suspect your first priority would be maintaining a profit oriented system.

Oh, if we are going to let the insurance companies exist in their current form I would repeal their antitrust exemption or shut up about "competition".

Doubling down on stupid.

Sure, that'll work.

Wait, I thought it was the pigs fault? Or, is it rOnNiE RayGuN? I keep losing track since I lost my "60's Terms and Slang" Desk Reference.

Oh well,...If Obumblescare is going to cost over $1.5 trillion, I'm sure single payer will be cheaper. *eyeroll*

Which reminds me...At this point and for years, the Saudis have been coming HERE for treatment! Here, because our treatment is better. In Europe, people who get sick go to the AMerican Hospital in Paris.People know our treatment is the best.We have to find ways to bring the costs down, no doubt about it.But, imagine no profit? Imagine the lack of enterprise, research, all the good things that put our healthcare on the map BECAUSE of profit, because of research that has saved BILLIONS, etc etc?OH, I Know..the gov't, through altruism, will continue research at the same rate because we have the money!!? :=) NEVER HAPPEN.But, it'll take us off the map in yet another field...is that the goal? You know how the left hates our exceptionalism, and even denies it.

My neighbor's cousin live in Ireland and had a year's wait list to have a bypass,but hey it's free. I am concerned that centralizing health care for 300 million people will be disastrous.Take a number for your hip replacement wow number 678,000. That should be about 2 years. But hey it's free,if you don't count the 8.00 per gallon price for gas or your ever growing grocery bill.See one way or another it's going to cost because as we know nothing is really free.

Ryan's plan is a non-starter for me, just like his last plan, because he seems to be trying to continue to fund social spending programs.

We're going to have to cut social spending to zero eventually, might as well do it now. We've run out of road to kick the can of Baby Boomer fiscal irresponsibility down.

Unpopular with voters? Yes. But, perhaps Baby Boomers should have the same vote Generation X and the current generation did when they "decided" to pass their debt to us before we were even born.

And no, I don't want to hear the myth about Boomers who paid lower payroll tax rates for decades and get back more than the full amount of their lifetime contributions to Social Security and Medicare by the third year of their retirement "paid all their lifes" and deserve to live out their final days on government checks, a new wave of Ida May Fullers. Not with a $15 Trillion national debt left to future generations they didn't.

Doing something is better than doing nothing, but Ryan's plan not doing enough might as well be nothing. Since it's not going to ever make it over to the Oval Office to be signed by any President current or future, it is nothing.

Ducky: There are no fringe right wingers present or commenting. Reword. The fringe right actually dislikes Reagan and think he was a socialist.

Silver: It wasn't a good try at all, really. Ducky is trying to cook the numbers with caviats. Bring up Reagan only dooms his argument. Obama has been adding more to the national debt every single year he has been in office than Ronald Reagan did for his entire 8 years

If Obama were as fiscally responsible as Reagan was, we'd be dealing with $200 billion annual deficits. A fraction of what we have now, even if still irresponsible.

How about a balanced budget amendment prohibiting the government from borrowing money except in times of war actually declared by Congress, and with the proviso that in that event 20% of Federal revenue be automatically applied annually to it's reduction.

I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth already, but we have to start somewhere.

Well, Silver, first I'd start by thinking with my brain instead of my ass, and therefore remember that they are NOT "Obama's," as only a moron with amnesia with believe such a ridiculously stupid thing.

And so therefore, I would NOT, as a moronic amnesiac might, REPEAT the same mistakes that caused the deficit in the first place - unfunded wars, heavy borrowing, irresponsible tax and regulatory and tax enforcement cuts, disallowing Part-D from negotiating drug prices, expand our already ridiculously overstretched military, and so on.

We could get rid of the deficit very easily. Our leaders just lack the courage. Raising taxes is not fun for any politician. They'd all rather not do it. Only a psychotically hyper-partisan moron thinks otherwise. But we have to do it. We have to cut the military, take the cap off the payroll tax, institute and national public non-profit health insurance, increase tax collection and regulatory enforcement, and yes, RAISE TAXES.

We've been trying it the stupid, moronic, amnesiac, "conservative" way for over thirty years now, and for ALL but the rich, it's been a failure.

Oh man, I could talk with you for hours on this topic. The short and sweet of it is that Ryan's plan falls desperately short and doesn't include the MIC. Just because the left hates it doesn't mean it's good. You and I should create a post series on this topic?

1. All laws related to the collection and redistrubution of revenues to operate the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid entitlement programs are hereby repealed.

2. It is a capital crime related to treason for a Congressman or Senator to vote for any form of tax increase on any American citizen anywhere that does not gain unanimous support. Any tax increase proposal that gains a single "nay" vote in opposition will result in the immediate expulsion from office of the Senator or Congressman that voted "yea" on said tax increase proposal, followed by summary execution at the earliest convenience of placing said execution on live television on all media outlets.

3. It is hereby illegal to propose any form of government regulated or mandated replacement of Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid once these treasonous nation-destroying programs are eliminated. The punishment for violating this law shall be no less than death by execution.

ViburnumHow about a balanced budget amendment prohibiting the government from borrowing money except in times of war actually declared by Congress, and with the proviso that in that event 20% of Federal revenue be automatically applied annually to it's reduction.

A start -- but the solution would take decades to make a dent in the deficit, right?

President Obama’s 2013 budget, which will land with a thud on Congress’ doorstep Monday, shows the price the country continues to pay for the recession, projecting a deficit of $1.3 trillion for 2012, the White House said Friday.

Silver, we all know that liberalism is is a mental disorder, but what I fail to understand is, to do all of the damage to our country; financially, morally, etc., shows that those on the left are beyond being mentally ill, they are completely devoid of any gray matter what-so-ever, so how do they still manage to walk around and make our lives hell?

AOW: "A start -- but the solution would take decades to make a dent in the deficit, right?"

Total projected direct revenue for 2012 is 5.1 trillion. 20% of that is 1 trillion. The estimated debt in 2012 is about 19 trillion, so even if revenue didn't rise above the current figure we could pay it down in about 20 years.

Not having the government borrowing the lions share of the money supply would do wonders for the economy so revenues would likely increase, boosting the amortization schedule accordingly.

When you're stuck in the bottom of a hole the first step towards getting out is STOP DIGGING. Since Congress can't seem to do that on their own, we need to take away their shovel.

Viburnum,Not having the government borrowing the lions share of the money supply would do wonders for the economy...When you're stuck in the bottom of a hole the first step towards getting out is STOP DIGGING.

Liberalism is dedicated to the dismantling and destruction of America. They want to be able to rebuild a utopian socialist state in their image where a King, tyrant, or dictator is able to divvy out rights, deciding who should get what rights, eliminating the rights of the people which comes from God, all because liberals think they know better than God. In addition liberalcrats think they can make better decisions than individuals. Liberals don't know the meaning of common sense. That is antithetical to progressivism. Liberals don't believe in freedom or liberty. They believe in a bunch of devil-loving feel good rights which counters the good in our civilization.

Good to know that you'd put to effective use Mr. AOW's carcass and my carcass.

You said yourself that "Only a total MORON can believe that the path we are on right now is sustainable."

I agree. What sounded good to your generation over the last 40 years - paying exponentially lower payroll taxes and lobbying for and getting ever-increasing benefits and passing the debt to people not even born yet - is unsustainable.

When the avalanche starts, it's too late for the pebbles to vote. We have a $15 Trillion national debt (so far) and supressed economic growth with your way. The MORON way.

I suggest you knock on FDR and LBJ's tombs for your meal ticket. They promised them to you. I didn't.

Seeing as I and others of my generation and the current generation had absolutely no voice in the debt your generation created for us to pay off, the fact that you're trying to browbeat me further for your generation's fiscal irresponsibility is itself offensive.

Beamish,Actually, Mr. AOW and I have tried to make our own private provisions for our retirement.

At one point, we were not allowed to do so -- because FICA monies were being withheld from our wages. By "not allowed," I'm referring to forbidden by federal law.

your generation's fiscal irresponsibility

As a generation, yes. As specific individuals, no.

Mr. AOW and I have not lived in the lifestyle of so many of our friends and neighbors.

I can count on the fingers of my two hands how many times I've taken a commercial airline flight -- including those times when we were called to the bedside of dying relatives.

No European vacation.

No cruises.

The only new car my little 2009 Hyundai.

Living for 9.5 years in a house with no john while we were caregiving my grandmother.

Living since 1982 in this old house -- no central AC, only one john, limited square footage, only one or two pieces of new furniture in our entire married lives, etc.

Paying rape rates for health insurance while government workers get their insurance for next to nothing -- the balance of the premium being picked up their employers (governments).

Watching those around me go belly up and walk away from their debt -- only to start the same moronic, gimme cycle all over again.

You know the "mistake" that Mr. AOW and I made? We didn't work for the federal government but rather for private industry. Our choice was deliberate. We felt that, as conservatives, we could not in good conscience work for the ever-growing federal government. And both of us walked away from local and state jobs too. We insisted on living by our conservative principles instead of living on the taxpayers' teats.

As a result of our decision, we are screwed and never even had dinner out.

Look. I understand your anger. I was royally pissed off when I couldn't "work the system" and couldn't even enjoy the lifestyle of those around me because I was living according to conservative principles.

Again, I understand your anger. Your generation and the subsequent generations are on the road to serfdom and watching others "work the system."

We have a $15 Trillion national debt (so far) and supressed economic growth with your way.

It wasn't MY way. I was bucking the system every step of the way.

Now I've reached a certain stage of life -- Mr. AOW's much worse, as you know -- that I cannot physically do much more to buck the system. Certainly Mr. AOW cannot do any more or even work at all. We're not getting rich on his monthly Social Security check of a lousy $1000 -- that's for sure. That check is, however, keeping us off Medicaid. No consolation to you, I know.

Beamish,You know me, and I know you. Sort of, anyway. You speak in blunt terms, and that's fine on the web.

Stay with me on this for a minute. And try not to get pissed off.

So here's what I think....The revamping so desperately needed has to be designed by conservatives who understand economics AND who can present such a revamping in a way that doesn't toss Grandma out into the street for skin harvesting.

No revamping plan is going to fly if that plan is perceived as one that will result in elderly and disabled folks dying in the streets because they have no housing and no medical care (especially palliative).

PS: Mr. AOW and I aren't candidates for skin harvesting. (1) We have paid for our cemetery plots and markers. (2) This summer, we will be making our pre-need funeral arrangements. At least the state won't have to foot those bills that we will be leaving behind!

PPS: None of my government-working neighbors have made any such end-of-life arrangements. And they are older than we are! Go figure.

My main anger is at the general Baby Boomer "tomorrow never comes" view of economics vs. the general Generation X "tomorrow is here, suckas" view of economics.

Baby Boomers built this moral hazard with ever-expanding "entitlements" on the fanciful notion that the next generation will gladly pay higher taxes and assume the debt. I don't think human nature has evolved that much. I certainly don't believe, for a second, that the upcoming generation wants to pay even higher taxes than I do to pay off my generation's debts if we ever clear your generation's debts.

So where did the Baby Boomer generation acquire this something-for-nothing-gimme-handouts mentality? I understand what you're saying about living by conservative principles - "He who does not work, neither shall he eat" was Bible long before it was Lenin - I don't own a thing I have not entirely paid for. I am, however, paying for things I do not get to own, namely health care and welfare for people I don't even know. I am under no illusion that I'll ever get to enjoy having my retirement income and health care entitlements supplemented at the expense of four other people actually working. The "wolf at the door" of Medicare insolvency has only been held back at being an average of 9 years away over the last 35 years. Medicare insolvency was 2 years away in 1972. Through smoke and mirror reforms it peaked to being 28 years away under Bush (2002). Under Obama, that has dropped to a current 5 years away. Medicare will be insolvent by 2017. Period.

And we've run out of ways to game the system to keep it afloat, to push the insolvency date onward into the future.

I know for a fact we've run out of people who believe their payroll taxes aren't high enough.

And I know that I could invest that 15.3% of my gross income going into Social Security and Medicare as a self-employed American, particularly one already coughing up a total of 32% of my gross income to the federal and state (Missouri) and local (st. Louis city) government. That means, bottom line, I get to keep for myself 52.7% of my annual income (and pay all manner of sales taxes and fees on things I buy, only to later pay personal property taxes on that which I bought to make my own). Oh, now I gotta pay tax on my home. And my work and personal vehicles. And the government requires me to insure all of those as well, for extra government loophole expense. We're well past some level of government and legal requirement eating up over half of my gross income before I even get to unwrap the candy bar I've been saving up money for the gas to get me to the store to buy. And now the candy bar costs more than it did last year.

This is the situation upon which the Baby Boomers have decided and are deciding, in their lifelong engrained pain avoidance pattern, that to continue their "entitlement" parasitism I may generation and the next generation must pay even higher taxes than they ever did.

This isn't the Tea Party where you get together one weekend a month and holler pointlessly about being overtaxed at the people that bought your vote with entitlement spending under homemade and mispelled placard signs and then go home. This is a situation where an entire generation of people are starting to realize maintaining the lawn at the graveyard is cheaper than keeping people out of graves a bit longer.

Beamish,When Medicare comes down, it will bring the health care industry down with it. Then what?

I learned not long ago that private health insurance for those over age 65 is unavailable. Unavailable! My father-in-law has found a woman that he wants to marry; she isn't an American citizen and, therefore, is not entitled to Medicare. They can't find a private policy! This woman is 80 years old and in good health, but if J marries her and she gets ill, he's on the hook for every penny. J is in his mid 80s.

BTW, Medicare happens automatically for those who are eligible for it. The card arrives one day in the mail! One cannot refuse Medicare without jumping through a lot of hoops.

Medicare has destroyed private health insurance for those over 65. In fact, I know some very rich folks who are using Medicare. There is no other policy available for that age group!

Medicare doesn't pay for residential care in a nursing home. Medicaid does. Medicaid was never intended for that purpose but that's what has happened. The rest of my comment explains why.

Do most folks in a nursing home NEED to be in a nursing home? I think so -- based on what I saw in the nursing home where Mr. AOW was for physical therapy. At that time, he needed to be in a nursing home as he was, for all practical purposes, helpless, both mentally and physically. As you know, I brought him home -- and I had to threaten litigation to get him out of there. Could Mr. AOW have been kept at home as soon as he was released from the hospital? Not with only me as caregiver; I have a job and am physically unable to provide the necessary round-the-clock care.

The state mental hospitals where the demented used to be confined (as my demented grandfather was) are now closed or filled to capacity.

So, I still see the conundrum of what are we going to do with people like my demented grandfather and my mother-in-law (late stage Alzheimer's) if Medicare and Medicaid are terminated or come crashing down? The only solution I can see is to make family members physically and financially responsible for the helpless elderly. It is my guess that those family members would then lose AT LEAST 70% of their income -- if not all.

In my own family, my father refused to allow the government to take over the care of his mother, who also had to be confined because of dementia. He chose a nursing home and, along with his only sibling, paid for his mother's care. There went my college fund! Adios! Along with a lot of other things, too.

This entire health care problem for the disabled or those over 65 -- Catch 22.

Beamish,I get to keep for myself 52.7% of my annual income (and pay all manner of sales taxes and fees on things I buy, only to later pay personal property taxes on that which I bought to make my own). Oh, now I gotta pay tax on my home. And my work and personal vehicles. And the government requires me to insure all of those as well, for extra government loophole expense.

Yep.

Mr. AOW and I could have saved more if we hadn't been in a similar boat. We saved a lot in the early years of our marriage -- before the taxes were link that and because I inherited this shack of a house -- that I now pay $500/month in personal property taxes. And before Mr. AOW's brain surgery in 1993, he was able to work a decent job.

The Founding Fathers and those who fought in the Continental Army were our original Western Heroes, guided by the thinkers of the Enlightenment and following in the footsteps of great warriors like Jan Sobieski and Charles Martel.